Last week I "reviewed"  the websites of Habitat for Humanity and Charity: Water. Just to remind you, I’m looking  especially at  online fundraising appeals,  use of  online video,  and use of social media.

Originally I selected Habitat as emblematic of a well-known brand that appealed largely to a mainstream, middle-aged and older adult constituency … a demographic not necessarily immersed in web wizardry. And Charity:Water as a new, less well-known brand, but one that seemed especially web-friendly. Turned out to be a fascinating comparison (at least to me!).

Today, I’m looking at Greenpeace … for purposes of this discussion, Greenpeace USA.

I picked Greenpeace as perhaps one of the most recognizable brands in issue advocacy on the planet, and one that has traditionally appealed to a younger, presumably web-savvy demographic. I figured this should be the web at its best — dynamic activist strategies; dramatic, image-rich campaigns; web-friendly supporters; and ample financial resources to work with.

At the same time, like Habitat, 38-year-old Greenpeace USA has traditionally raised the bulk of its funds through "old-fashioned channels" like direct mail and even door-to-door canvasing. So how adroitly have they mastered the online medium?

I was a bit disappointed with GPUSA online, especially regarding online fundraising, as you’ll see. So, given the aspects I’m focused on, Greenpeace USA rates just a "C+".

Once again I began by simply googling the organization (limiting my search to USA hits), getting 13,200,000 hits — 3+ times more than Habitat, but making Charity:Water’s 38 million hits even more astounding! I would have expected a gazillion for Greenpeace, given its near 100% name recognition and broad-scale agenda.

I will confess to some disappointment that googling "global environmental issues" did not yield a Greenpeace hit in the top 50 (there’s that SEO issue again), but I suppose that Greenpeace web managers simply can’t believe that anyone looking into such issues wouldn’t obviously know about and type "Greenpeace"!  Anyway …

Online fundraising appeals — true to GP’s activist roots, the main call-to-action on their homepage (at least today)  is an appeal to get involved in their Oct 24 Day of Action. Warming my heart, the appeal is delivered by an inspiring video.

Lower on the page, below the fold (hmmm!), one finds a fundraising appeal, and it’s a traditionally strong offer … a dollar-for-dollar matching gift appeal. But that said, the appeal is lousy. It’s not tied to any issue or campaign … just "Hey, take advantage of our time-limited match." And when you get to the Donate page, there’s merely a cursory reference to "save our oceans" … no particular campaign. To say nothing of the fact that you might have just watched their stirring video call-to-action on global warming! Terrible fundraising.

I’ll give them credit for leading with a monthly gift option (versus one-time gift) on the Donate page, but they barely even mention the matching gift again (see if you notice it). This is the most careless and generic of online fundraising pages. I might add that two other Donate buttons prominently displayed on the homepage pop you to a clone of the same generic Donate page … but this time with no mention of the match at all. HUGE demerits!

Online video — I’ve already noted the featured video call-to-action that dominates the homepage (and is well done). A "Photos & Videos" button takes you in two clicks to a library of 50 or so videos (some of which leave you wondering, HUH … why’s this here?). However, clicking the prominent YouTube icon on the homepage bounces you to GP’s YouTube Channel, where some greater care seems to have been taken. Since its Feb 07 start-up the channel has garnered 1,586 subscribers and 58,024 channel views. The top video of 80+ on the channel, Homelessness Among Polar Bears, has had nearly 90,000 views. Most videos had several thousand views. This is what I’d expect from an organization with a proud tradition of dramatic images … see this Anthony Hopkins narrated fundraising message for a sense of the potential. Still, it’s too bad there seems to be such a big disconnect between fundraising and video reinforcement on this site.

Social media — the homepage features the most popular social media — YouTube (as described), Vimeo (video site, seems new for GP), Facebook (35,780 fans, lots of photos, but a pretty modest presence), Twitter (12,536 followers, but nuttin’ happenin’ here), and MySpace (this seems to be the most robust of GP’s social net sites, including a tiny bit of fundraising). At least the YouTube and Facebook sites give a bit of reinforcement to the Oct 24  Day of Action.

The homepage includes an RSS sign-up option, and even a sign-up for old-fashioned e-mail alerts. Greenpeace once again shows its activist roots by featuring lead-ins from three blogs from staff campaigners. I found this the most engaging aspect of the homepage strategy. People support Greenpeace expecting action, and that’s definitely the sense one gets from this section of the page.

Parenthetically, I find the Greenpeace USA homepage much too busy … far too many options and distractions. My eye is taken to the video call to action, the center blog teasers, then the social media icons … everything else is a blur. But then I’m not a webpage developer … and I am getting up there in years.

All in all, with respect to the three features I’m focusing on, I was a bit disappointed in the Greenpeace site. The online fundraising is a disaster. Activism is the featured engagement on the homepage. I’ll assume that reflects a conscious strategic decision, and I can’t quarrel with that … certainly it is faithful to the brand. There’s some decent video on the site, but it is barely leveraged at all for fundraising support.

Social media are being utilized, but surprisingly, given GP’s demographic, not with any particular flair. It just doesn’t look like they’ve gotten around to thinking seriously about social media. Maybe they don’t have the resources after all. Were I their web consultant, I’d say fix the online fundraising first, and only then turn to the social media stuff.

Greenpeace USA — web-wise — looks like a middle-aged institution that has a too-big committee plotting its online course.

Tom